his ego is gigantic, but what is really annoying about teeth is his habit of trying to shamelessly inject common leftists social critiques into a conversation when a) he is losing or b) when the conversation doesnt call for them.

this is how we end up with classic teeth posts like breastfeeding is patriarchal and some lukewarm atheist personality's failure to thoroughly rebuke a shitty smear tactician posing as a journalist is actually the ugly face of the white patriarchy peering down through ages.

__________________
Kid yourself about your behavior and you'll never learn a fucking thing.

Ahh another elitist, arrogant atheist, who spent most of his life campaigning against the "evil" Bible, failed to mention that he and his family prospered off the Slave Trade....I bet he didnt turn down any of that inherited slave cash...which most likely paid for his expensive education.

For once I agree with you Sugarhitman, but I have to wonder what should actually be done as far as reparations?

Should he have to pay something back and to whom?

The more I think about it though, he and other posters might be right that the farm hasn't really been profitable since he's been a part of it.

his ego is gigantic, but what is really annoying about teeth is his habit of trying to shamelessly inject common leftists social critiques into a conversation when a) he is losing or b) when the conversation doesnt call for them.

"Annoying" isn't the word I'd use. "Sad", and "reeks of desperation" are more where I am. I actually suspect my little side observation may be more relevant than one would think as to how he got himself here in the first place itt. The play book is what it is once the game is under way.

Quote:

this is how we end up with classic teeth posts like breastfeeding is patriarchal and some lukewarm atheist personality's failure to thoroughly rebuke a shitty smear tactician posing as a journalist is actually the ugly face of the white patriarchy peering down through ages.

Yeah, and this adopting some identifiable posture to the point of absurd caricature is pretty universal too. From Schneibs' internet refuter asker of tough questionsleet haxor play, to Teeth's need to make quick ad-hoc links between justifications for his prejudices and the prevalent moral/political persuasion of Tr, that's nice easy predictable social wiring doing it's thing.

Funny and kinda sad I always think, because it gives the lie to having conversations in a way - it's just some bunch of animals following their instincts. This is why the real value to me is afterwards, when you notice a genuine shift in his position. That's the difference between the Scheibs/apostates of this world and Teeth in cases like this. Over time the experience still teaches Teeth, even though for now he dances like a little monkey all the same.

Damn I'm feeling philosophical-psychoanalytical this Monday. Sorry.

eta: basically Teeth has started bullying his bitch on any occasion he can where Dawkins is concerned, and that's what got him into this position here.

his ego is gigantic, but what is really annoying about teeth is his habit of trying to shamelessly inject common leftists social critiques into a conversation when a) he is losing or b) when the conversation doesnt call for them.

this is how we end up with classic teeth posts like breastfeeding is patriarchal and some lukewarm atheist personality's failure to thoroughly rebuke a shitty smear tactician posing as a journalist is actually the ugly face of the white patriarchy peering down through ages.

Or maybe you're just obsessed with me in the same way that BSB is obsessed with you. Go back and read what I actually said, rather than what you tried to read into it. Basically I said that Dawkins comes across as a smarmy ass complaining about how he's being blamed for the actions of his ancestors when he's a self-made man. Not sure how that's a horrible or untrue statement, or how this has anything to do with "shamelessly injecting social critiques" or anything else.

__________________
In the land of the talentless, the one-trick pony is king.

his ego is gigantic, but what is really annoying about teeth is his habit of trying to shamelessly inject common leftists social critiques into a conversation when a) he is losing or b) when the conversation doesnt call for them.

this is how we end up with classic teeth posts like breastfeeding is patriarchal and some lukewarm atheist personality's failure to thoroughly rebuke a shitty smear tactician posing as a journalist is actually the ugly face of the white patriarchy peering down through ages.

Or maybe you're just obsessed with me in the same way that BSB is obsessed with you. Go back and read what I actually said, rather than what you tried to read into it. Basically I said that Dawkins comes across as a smarmy ass complaining about how he's being blamed for the actions of his ancestors when he's a self-made man. Not sure how that's a horrible or untrue statement, or how this has anything to do with "shamelessly injecting social critiques" or anything else.

Suprisingly it is actually a broadsheet - not a tabloid. It is however aligned with the right wing party (the Conservatives, or Tories as they are often called), and so it's often called "the Toryraph".

Of course, back in the day, the Tories were predominantly pro-slavery whereas their opponents the Whigs (more or less the ancestors of today's Liberal party) were anti-slavery...

__________________Socrates: Ahlberg, and a couple others I won't name, are the Shame of Sweden. It's awful.

I don't think it's a particularly big deal, and I'm not really even sure I owned him. There was a discussion about the science in Dawkins's popular books, I said I didn't appreciate the factual inaccuracies, Dawkins got involved and tried to smear me as being a creationist, and I told him I didn't appreciate that as a biology grad student who studies evolution and was directly involved in teaching undergrads about evolution. He apologized for calling me a creationist, admitted he overstates certainty about certain things for rhetorical points, and then we basically just agreed to disagree on education approaches.

I don't see how that has anything to do with the current discussion.

__________________
In the land of the talentless, the one-trick pony is king.

his ego is gigantic, but what is really annoying about teeth is his habit of trying to shamelessly inject common leftists social critiques into a conversation when a) he is losing or b) when the conversation doesnt call for them.

this is how we end up with classic teeth posts like breastfeeding is patriarchal and some lukewarm atheist personality's failure to thoroughly rebuke a shitty smear tactician posing as a journalist is actually the ugly face of the white patriarchy peering down through ages.

Or maybe you're just obsessed with me in the same way that BSB is obsessed with you. Go back and read what I actually said, rather than what you tried to read into it. Basically I said that Dawkins comes across as a smarmy ass complaining about how he's being blamed for the actions of his ancestors when he's a self-made man. Not sure how that's a horrible or untrue statement, or how this has anything to do with "shamelessly injecting social critiques" or anything else.

__________________
In the land of the talentless, the one-trick pony is king.

I don't think it's a particularly big deal, and I'm not really even sure I owned him. There was a discussion about the science in Dawkins's popular books, I said I didn't appreciate the factual inaccuracies, Dawkins got involved and tried to smear me as being a creationist, and I told him I didn't appreciate that as a biology grad student who studies evolution and was directly involved in teaching undergrads about evolution. He apologized for calling me a creationist, admitted he overstates certainty about certain things for rhetorical points, and then we basically just agreed to disagree on education approaches.

I don't see how that has anything to do with the current discussion.

It seems that Dawkins approaches the biological sciences the way you approach the social sciences.

__________________You can't fix what elephants do.

Any private messages sent to this member will not automatically be considered confidential.

his ego is gigantic, but what is really annoying about teeth is his habit of trying to shamelessly inject common leftists social critiques into a conversation when a) he is losing or b) when the conversation doesnt call for them.

"Annoying" isn't the word I'd use. "Sad", and "reeks of desperation" are more where I am. I actually suspect my little side observation may be more relevant than one would think as to how he got himself here in the first place itt. The play book is what it is once the game is under way.

Quote:

this is how we end up with classic teeth posts like breastfeeding is patriarchal and some lukewarm atheist personality's failure to thoroughly rebuke a shitty smear tactician posing as a journalist is actually the ugly face of the white patriarchy peering down through ages.

Yeah, and this adopting some identifiable posture to the point of absurd caricature is pretty universal too. From Schneibs' internet refuter asker of tough questionsleet haxor play, to Teeth's need to make quick ad-hoc links between justifications for his prejudices and the prevalent moral/political persuasion of Tr, that's nice easy predictable social wiring doing it's thing.

Funny and kinda sad I always think, because it gives the lie to having conversations in a way - it's just some bunch of animals following their instincts. This is why the real value to me is afterwards, when you notice a genuine shift in his position. That's the difference between the Scheibs/apostates of this world and Teeth in cases like this. Over time the experience still teaches Teeth, even though for now he dances like a little monkey all the same.

Damn I'm feeling philosophical-psychoanalytical this Monday. Sorry.

eta: basically Teeth has started bullying his bitch on any occasion he can where Dawkins is concerned, and that's what got him into this position here.

I think you're reading way too much into it, buddy. I don't think I would have said anything if people weren't patting each other on the backs about how good Dawkins's response was. His response was immature and pretentious crap. If, say, a prior Republican frontrunner had offered a similar justification for why he's not to blame for having a ranch with an unfortunate name, folks wouldn't let it slide.

So I'm not sure what's going on here. I think a few folks are just craving drama or something.

__________________
In the land of the talentless, the one-trick pony is king.

I think you're reading way too much into it, buddy. I don't think I would have said anything if people weren't patting each other on the backs about how good Dawkins's response was.

yeah, all these "people." or, actually, "no one," as the only person who said anything about dawkin's response being good before you posted was febble, and she said that this was in comparison to the low bar he's set for himself in her estimation.

I think you're reading way too much into it, buddy. I don't think I would have said anything if people weren't patting each other on the backs about how good Dawkins's response was.

yeah, all these "people." or, actually, "no one," as the only person who said anything about dawkin's response being good before you posted was febble, and she said that this was in comparison to the low bar he's set for himself in her estimation.

I guess I value febble's opinion pretty highly then.

__________________
In the land of the talentless, the one-trick pony is king.

also, let's not forget that initially you accused dawkins of "missing the point" of the article, a point you never actually elaborated on when asked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by teeth

Dunno, I think Dawkins's response was pretty callous and missed the point...

Quote:

Originally Posted by brgriffi

What was "the point" of that dumb article?

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

you then went on to claim that dawkins' response was weak because he "played into" the article's "point" and suggested that he should have "addressed the problem," another enigma you never followed up on:

Quote:

Originally Posted by teeth

The initial piece was certainly retarded and a smear tactic, but Dawkins basically played right into it by pulling of this "whatever, not my fault, now we only have a small family estate that doesn't make a lot of money" crap. The effective way to deal with this would have been to actually address the problem rather than trying to wash his hands of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Y.B

Quote:

Originally Posted by teeth

The effective way to deal with this would have been to actually address the problem rather than trying to wash his hands of it.

What problem?

so the idea that you were just annoyed at all this mutual backslapping about how awesome dawkins' response was turns out to be total BS, like much of what you post.